ivotuk":292e6hgq said:
vin.couve12":292e6hgq said:
McGruff":292e6hgq said:
Gilliam's Sparq was 126.2
Very much appreciated, Good Sir. That puts him tied with Anthony Fabiano of Harvard for the best SPARQ score for all OL in this year's draft.
If Gary Gilliam were in this year's draft as an OT, say from a small school where the tape shows little, and all we knew was his SPARQ people would be clamoring to draft him.
This. Plus the fact he's still a fundamentally raw player which means his ceiling is still very high. He still has potential but the biggest difference between him and a rookie will be:
2 and 1/2 years of familarity in Cables System
2 and 1/2 years in a Pro Level Strength and Conditioning Program
2 years watching film of Wilson and his pocket tendacies.
2 years studying Pro Level Defenses and Players
18 starts at the Pro Level at a position he had to learn on the fly and then gradually improved at showing much better performance at that said position than any player we've had in the last 5 years.
Yet peeps still want to dismiss Gilliam altogether because of inconsistencies he showed as a raw 2nd year player pretty much skating by at a unfamilar position in his first year of starting.
Yet those same people will prop Okung and Sweezy despite the fact they were too at times wildy inconsistent players with 6 and 4 years of experience respectfully.
I highly doubt any rookie would come in at #26 and be ahead of the curve of where Gilliam is at in his current development. And I highly doubt any one can project what Gilliam can and cant be after two years in the NFL based on 1 year of starting.
Or those people would be NFL scouts. And obviously the Seahawks feel different or they would have scrambled with desperation to dump more resources to secure that position with a better player.
